WL 18935, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 1987).

Thus, in total, the Court will award counsel for Mr. Cuevas
fees and costs in the amount of $8,738.75. This amount consists
of:

(1) 56.5 hours of attorney time, billed at the rate of
$147.50/hour, for a total of $8,333.75;

(2) 3 hours of legal assistant time, billed at the rate of
$85.00/hour, for a total of $255.00; and

(3) the $150.00 filing fee.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the application for fees

and costs filed by counsel for Mr. Cuevas is granted. The Court

awards fees and costs under the EAJA in the amount of $8,738.75.

Dated: December 29, 2004

ENTER:
ero —_ Keys
ARLANDER KEYS U

United States Magistrate Judge



counsel seeks to recover costs in the amount of $189.26.

Looking first at the requested rates, the Government does
not challenge counsel’s proposed rates, and the Court finds them
to be reasonable. Additionally, after reviewing the bills
submitted by counsel, the Court finds that the time spent
pursuing this case was, for the most part, reasonable; indeed,
the Government does not argue otherwise. The Court does find,
however, that the fees requested in counsel’s supplemental
request, submitted with counsel’s reply brief, are unreasonable.
According to that request, counsel spent 4.1 hours reviewing the
Commissioner’s opposition brief and preparing a reply brief in
support of his EAJA fee petition. The Court finds that this is
unreasonable for two reasons: first, the Commissioner's
opposition brief was less than 4 pages long; and second, counsel
spent just 2.4 hours preparing the initial petition. The Court
will allow just 2.5 hours total in connection with the reply
brief. Thus, the Court finds that the amount of time counsel and
his legal assistant reasonably spent on this case was 59.5 hours
- 56.5 hours of attorney time, plus 3 hours of legal assistant
time.

With respect to costs, counsel seeks to recover the fee paid
to file this lawsuit, and slightly less than $40 in expedited
delivery charges. The Court will allow the former, but will not

allow the latter. See, e.g., Webb v. Bowen, No. 84 C 1113, 1987


Minuce Order Form (06/97)

roomy
United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4336 DATE 12/29/2004
CASE Wilfredo Cuevas vs. Jo Anne Barnhart
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) slate briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(aD) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ set for at _
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) 0 [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
DFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
qo) «ol [Other docket entry] | Memorandum Opinion and Order entered. Application for Fees and Costs
[#35] filed by counsel for Plaintiff is grants The Court awards fees and costs under the Equal Access
to Justice Act in the amount of $8,738.75.
gl) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. 3
No notices required. umber of noses
V | Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified b Sh DEC 3 0 2004
(otified counsel by telephone. date dockered
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. docketing dou) ia “
Copy to judge/magistrate judge
122972004 .
courtroom G7 date mailed notice
rT / deputy’s at N a ft
initials :
/ Date/time received in,
central Clerk’s Office “+ nailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

WILFREDO CUEVAS,
Plaintiff,
v- Case No. 02 C 4336
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social
Security,

Magistrate Judge
Arlander Keys

Dene,
Defendant. DEC 4 ETE
2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 14, 2004, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security.
See Cuevas v. Barnhart, No. 02 C 4336, 2004 WL 1588277 (N.D. Ill.
July 14, 2004). Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cuevas’ attorney
petitioned the Court for an award of attorney’s fees and costs
under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The EAJA “authorizes the payment of fees to a prevailing
party in an action against the United States; the Government may
defeat this entitlement by showing that its position in the
underlying litigation ‘was substantially justified.’"
Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 40, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 1862 (2004)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1) (A)). A position is substantially
justified if it was “grounded in ‘(1) a reasonable basis in truth
for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the
theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between the

facts alleged and the legal theory advanced.’” United States v.

}


Halimark Construction Co., 200 F.3d 1076, 1080 (7th Cir.
2000) (quoting Phil Smidt & Son, Inc. v. NLRB, 810 F.2d 638, 642
(7th Cir. 1987)).

Having won summary judgment in his favor and secured a
remand, Mr. Cuevas is the prevailing party. Moreover, the Court
granted summary judgment to Mr. Cuevas, and denied the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, because it found that
the ALJ ignored key lines of evidence, misstated or omitted key
facts in the record, and failed to follow the social security
regulations and the law of this Circuit concerning credibility
determinations and findings, and concerning pain and the effects
thereof. See Cuevas, 2004 WL 1588277, at *12-*16. All of this
tends to demonstrate that the ALJ’s position, and the
Commissioner's defense of that position, were not substantially
justified. See, e.g., Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 382 F.3d 721,
724-25 (7th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner has offered nothing in
her opposition brief to persuade the Court otherwise. The Court,
therefore, finds that an award is appropriate under the EAJA.

Having determined that an award is appropriate, the Court
turns to the question of the amount of the award. Counsel seeks
to recover fees covering 58.1 hours of attorney time at the rate
of $147.50/hour; counsel also seeks to recover 3 hours of legal
assistant time at the rate of $85.00/hour. Thus, counsel

requests total fees in the amount of $8,824.75. Additionally,